You have the same right as everyone else to married someone of the the opposite sex. That is the Same right as everyone else isn't it? Because asking to married some of the same sex is actually asking for an unequal right.
What I'm saying is that had it been up to a simple majority vote, Mildred and Richard Loving's arrest would have been upheld and their family broken apart or forced into another state.
It took a Supreme Court ruling to strike down these laws and affirm that marriage, as a legal institution, is subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that these fundamental freedoms can't be curtailed at the mere whim of a legislature or a popular vote.
No, that's simply incorrect. Polls at the time showed popular support for "anti-miscegenation" laws. The Supreme Court struck down these laws in their ruling in Loving v. Virginia, because they were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In time, the popular furor died down, and interracial marriage became a nonissue.
Incidentally, before she died last year, Mildred Loving voiced her hope that same-sex couples would gain legal marriage, bless her heart.
ElProximo: A majority would have voted to anull the marriage of Mildred and Richard Loving as well (the interracial couple at the center of Loving v. Virginia). That didn't make it right, or even constitutional.
Yes, provided gay people don't ever need to take advantage of the legal status of civil marriage to operate in society. Oh, I'm so sorry you missed your wife's dying words because the hospital was legally required to bar you from her bedside.
At some point, society makes a decision they do not want to promote or support this lifestyle. They have done it 31 out of 31 times. I guess this time around life was not fair to you. Neither was the Ethiopian kid that starved to death. Oh well, maybe next time you are reincarnated as a butterfly it will work out.
What is a perversion is that the religious allow the government to act as god in handing out marriage, essentially committing idolatry.
One has to ask why the religious community hasn't taken such a sacred act away from the government and placed it solely in the hands of religious institutions who can then determine who to hand marriages to.
In terms of same-sex marriage, this was a civil contract dispute, and should have been allowed under civil context. However, it wasn't, unfortunately
I'd be ok with the Yes on 1 side winning this ballot if they'd turn around and do the right thing, separating marriage from law and returning it to the spiritual contract that religion believes it is, giving EVERYone who is already married a civil union contract AND(to ensure backwards compatibility) a marriage license to anyone who deems it necessary.
That way, going forward, the legal process hands out civil unions to all couples, and marriage is left to religion. Would that appease you?
I would support civil unions for gays. Society has correctly promoted marriage as good and natural unit for man + woman + children. You were also the product of man + woman. Be lucky your father was not dumb or you would not be here.
I'd be fine with civil unions for gays, so long as civil unions was also the legal term for straights.
To me (and everyone I know in my generation), it's already settled that two people who are publically committed to each other are de facto married, regardless of whether it's legal or not. I don't particularly care what the legal terminology is, so long as it treats everyone impartially.
The law does treat everyone impartially. You are allowed to marry it would just have to be with someone of the opposite sex. You can choose to do this or not. That is because marriage is man + woman. Everyone can drive just have to stay on the right side of the road.
Why do same-sex marriage foes insist on resorting to ad hominem attacks?
You said the current law applies to everyone equally. I pointed out that earlier "anti-miscegenation" laws also applied to everyone equally, and yet were clearly discriminatory. Do you have a counterargument which is actually relevant and does not involve fantasies that everyone who disagrees with you is amoral?
Why do you insist on tying everything to black people? How about you let the gay lifestyle stand up on its own two feet? That's because it has never been proven that people are born gay. That's why we have waackos saying they are gay, bi, straight, then gay again week after week.
OK, so you've changed the subject AGAIN. I take it you don't actually have a counterargument, then?
Let the record stand that my assertion (a restriction on marriage can apply to everyone equally and still clearly be discriminatory and unconstitutional) has gone unchallenged.
Marriage belongs to all Americans. Sorry you don't understand bedrock American principles of equal protection under the law.
But don't worry, 52% for the anti-marriage crowd is honestly a pathetic showing when under-30 vote clearly supports marriage. I give it 5 years, 10 years tops, before enough crusty old fundamentalists die off to make their position politically untenable.
As Mary Cheney's dad once said, they're in their last throes. :)
Marriage, in the religious context, also does not belong to the government, and yet there it is.
I don't see why religious communities don't push Pro-religion documents and bills, such as enforcing religious practice rights within businesses and church, or stripping the sacred term marriage away from the government, or pushing a bill to make divorce much more difficult and costly to achieve than it already is.
You have the same right as everyone else to married someone of the the opposite sex. That is the Same right as everyone else isn't it? Because asking to married some of the same sex is actually asking for an unequal right.
bstunna06 2 years ago
Any vote to disenfranchise fellow equal citizens is illegitimate!
XaveJamesGrey 2 years ago 4
What I'm saying is that had it been up to a simple majority vote, Mildred and Richard Loving's arrest would have been upheld and their family broken apart or forced into another state.
It took a Supreme Court ruling to strike down these laws and affirm that marriage, as a legal institution, is subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that these fundamental freedoms can't be curtailed at the mere whim of a legislature or a popular vote.
tzushih 2 years ago
No, that's simply incorrect. Polls at the time showed popular support for "anti-miscegenation" laws. The Supreme Court struck down these laws in their ruling in Loving v. Virginia, because they were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In time, the popular furor died down, and interracial marriage became a nonissue.
Incidentally, before she died last year, Mildred Loving voiced her hope that same-sex couples would gain legal marriage, bless her heart.
tzushih 2 years ago
ElProximo: A majority would have voted to anull the marriage of Mildred and Richard Loving as well (the interracial couple at the center of Loving v. Virginia). That didn't make it right, or even constitutional.
tzushih 2 years ago
Yuck. A woman and a woman is sick. It is a perversion and confusion.
JavierCA2008 2 years ago
Yuck. Using the government to harm other people's families is sick. It is a perversion and confusion.
tzushih 2 years ago
I thought a family was a man + woman + kids. You want to play pretend? No one is harming you. You can live however you want.
JavierCA2008 2 years ago
Yes, provided gay people don't ever need to take advantage of the legal status of civil marriage to operate in society. Oh, I'm so sorry you missed your wife's dying words because the hospital was legally required to bar you from her bedside.
No one's harming gays? What a laugh.
tzushih 2 years ago 3
At some point, society makes a decision they do not want to promote or support this lifestyle. They have done it 31 out of 31 times. I guess this time around life was not fair to you. Neither was the Ethiopian kid that starved to death. Oh well, maybe next time you are reincarnated as a butterfly it will work out.
JavierCA2008 2 years ago
What is a perversion is that the religious allow the government to act as god in handing out marriage, essentially committing idolatry.
One has to ask why the religious community hasn't taken such a sacred act away from the government and placed it solely in the hands of religious institutions who can then determine who to hand marriages to.
In terms of same-sex marriage, this was a civil contract dispute, and should have been allowed under civil context. However, it wasn't, unfortunately
fluffywalrus 2 years ago
The issue is the word marriage. Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Call yourself a civil union or whatever and have at it.
JavierCA2008 2 years ago
I'd be ok with the Yes on 1 side winning this ballot if they'd turn around and do the right thing, separating marriage from law and returning it to the spiritual contract that religion believes it is, giving EVERYone who is already married a civil union contract AND(to ensure backwards compatibility) a marriage license to anyone who deems it necessary.
That way, going forward, the legal process hands out civil unions to all couples, and marriage is left to religion. Would that appease you?
fluffywalrus 2 years ago
I would support civil unions for gays. Society has correctly promoted marriage as good and natural unit for man + woman + children. You were also the product of man + woman. Be lucky your father was not dumb or you would not be here.
JavierCA2008 2 years ago
I'd be fine with civil unions for gays, so long as civil unions was also the legal term for straights.
To me (and everyone I know in my generation), it's already settled that two people who are publically committed to each other are de facto married, regardless of whether it's legal or not. I don't particularly care what the legal terminology is, so long as it treats everyone impartially.
tzushih 2 years ago
The law does treat everyone impartially. You are allowed to marry it would just have to be with someone of the opposite sex. You can choose to do this or not. That is because marriage is man + woman. Everyone can drive just have to stay on the right side of the road.
JavierCA2008 2 years ago
And when the law said everyone could marry so long as it was to someone of their own race, was that fair and impartial?
tzushih 2 years ago
Why do gays insist on tying everything to the blacks?
When a black baby or girl is born, we know it is black or a girl. "Gays" choose to engage in their perversion.
Also the blacks and women overwhelmingly believe in God unlike "gays" who do not care about morals.
JavierCA2008 2 years ago
Why do same-sex marriage foes insist on resorting to ad hominem attacks?
You said the current law applies to everyone equally. I pointed out that earlier "anti-miscegenation" laws also applied to everyone equally, and yet were clearly discriminatory. Do you have a counterargument which is actually relevant and does not involve fantasies that everyone who disagrees with you is amoral?
tzushih 2 years ago
Why do you insist on tying everything to black people? How about you let the gay lifestyle stand up on its own two feet? That's because it has never been proven that people are born gay. That's why we have waackos saying they are gay, bi, straight, then gay again week after week.
JavierCA2008 2 years ago
OK, so you've changed the subject AGAIN. I take it you don't actually have a counterargument, then?
Let the record stand that my assertion (a restriction on marriage can apply to everyone equally and still clearly be discriminatory and unconstitutional) has gone unchallenged.
tzushih 2 years ago
HA HA! You lost. You think you were robbed? Marriage is something that does not belong to you. Gays are the thieves.
JarodysCampaign 2 years ago
Marriage belongs to all Americans. Sorry you don't understand bedrock American principles of equal protection under the law.
But don't worry, 52% for the anti-marriage crowd is honestly a pathetic showing when under-30 vote clearly supports marriage. I give it 5 years, 10 years tops, before enough crusty old fundamentalists die off to make their position politically untenable.
As Mary Cheney's dad once said, they're in their last throes. :)
tzushih 2 years ago
Marriage, in the religious context, also does not belong to the government, and yet there it is.
I don't see why religious communities don't push Pro-religion documents and bills, such as enforcing religious practice rights within businesses and church, or stripping the sacred term marriage away from the government, or pushing a bill to make divorce much more difficult and costly to achieve than it already is.
fluffywalrus 2 years ago